Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1887-09-22
IMPORTER BURNS.
The Augusta Vender Of Sealed
Packages
Found Guilty of Keeping a
Liquor Nuisance.
Judge Warehouses; Able and SchoI-
arly Charge to the Jury.
IMPORTER BURNS.

is the full text of Judge Warehouses; mas
terly charge to the jury.
Gentlemen Of the Jury:
1t is charged in this indictment against the
respondent, as in several others hitherto sub
mitted to you at this term, that on the 18th
day of April last, and on divers ot1er DAYS
and times between that date and the day of
the finding Of this indictment. that he used
the building occupied by him in the city of
Augusta for the illegal keeping and the lille
gal sale Of intoxicating liquors. And it is
not in controversy between the government
here and the respondent that he did, during
the time named in this Indictment use this
building thus occupied by him in the city of
Augusta for the sale of intoxicating liquors
to all persons who might wish to purchase.
The statutes of the Stat, after prescribing
the methods by which Intoxicating liquors
may be legitlmstely dispensed for me-
dicinal and mechanical purposes,
expressly declare that no person shall,
at any time, by himself, clerk, servant or
agent dire ;tly or indirectly, sell any intoxi-
eating liquors of whatever origin; and in
anothe chapter expressly declare that all
places used for the illegal sale or illegal keep.
ing OF intoxicating liquors, shall be deemed
common nuisances 1t is not is controversy
between the government and the respondent
here that at the time named in this Indictment
this defrndent had conducted business in
violation of the terms OF the law OF this State
not in controversy tn at he has maintained
common nuisance in the c,tY Of Augusta by
the laws of this State, unless he Is exempt
from the operation of these State laws by
some paramount authority. IL Is not in con-
tr0versy that he has introduced into the city
Of Augusta, intoxicating liquors for the pur-
pose OF carving on a business in defiance OF
the express Letter of the law of the State of
Maine. But it is claimed on the part of the
respondent that this paramount authority is
found in the general statutes of the United
States authorizing the importation
of merchandise from foreign
country upon payment of certain
duties specified and required by the govern
ment, and conforming 10 certain regulations
prescribed by the government
Now it is true that the constitution of the
United States has vest d in Congress the
power to regulate commerce with foreign
nations, and it is a matter of common knowl
edge that Congress at an early period in the
history of the nation enacted general statutes
authorizing any person to import merchan-
disc from foreign country on payment of
certain duties and the defendant in this case
claims that he has exercised the authority
thus conferred by the statute of the United
States that he has paid for the exercise OF
this privilege certain duties to the United
States that in that manner he has introduced
into the Stat of Maine certain Intoxicating
liquors hich he claims he had right t. sell
in the pat kage~ in which they were imported
by him.
Now, gertem-o, vou have perceived Erom
the language OF the -,Aiute have read TO you
|
excepted by the language of our law No
person shall sell intoxicating liquors, except
for medicinal purposes rs provided in our
law. Ii does not except or exempt importers
from the operation of it. But you will per
ceive that our Legislature has not presumed
| for moment ~ say mat no person shall I'M
| port liquors into the State of Maize. l. has
not prtsum' d for a moment to interfere with
| the pr,r0gaiive of Congress to regulate com
merce in terms. Ii has SAID that "no per+on
shall sell not that no person shall import
| Now on the other hand my attention has
not been called to any act of Congress, and
| assume that no act of Congress exists any
where, which says that any person may sell
intoxicating liquors in the State of Maine.
There is no such law, aud therefore assert
| that there is no necessary conflict in terms
between the Law of Congress and the law of
the State of Maine. And q question arises
here whether there is a necessary conflict IN
the operation of these two laws, Federal and
State Now it is not in controversy that the
deft. is not protected by this law of Congress
in selling in his place of business in Angus
ia intoxicating liquors of domestic origin.
He is not protected in selling liquor. import
ed by himself otherwise than in the original
packages He ia not protected in keeping
liquors in the original packages with lhe IN
tent to break them and sell in any quantity
less than the original package. lie is not
protected in selling any liquors which he
mi yht purchase of another importer, but 1t is
claimed that he is protected in selling those
which he himself has purchased in foreign
country and himself import ID, and which he
sells in the original package. This is the
only contention of the def. Now while 1t is
the prerogative Of Congress thus to regulate
commerce, to prescribe the regulations con
corning the importation of merchandise
from foreign country, ii is universally
acknowledge power inherent in the
States, always possessed by the
States still retained by the
States, reserved to them in the Constitution
to establish, to msintain and to enforce all
such laws aud police regulations as they may
deem essential for the preservation OF the
health and the morals of the people OF those
States, for the protection OF the lives ana prop
erty of the citizens, and tor the maintenance OF
the hest interests of society ia those States.
This is known familiarity as the police power
of the States, and il has been by virtue OF TINS
sc-called police power. this power to govern
persons and things within their own domin-
ious that from the early history of the States
of this Union, from Colonial times, legislation
has been justified and enforced respecting
the traffic and excessive indulgence in intoXi-
eating liquors And surely this is no time
or place to recapitulate the evils resulting
from the excessive use OF ardent spirits. The
appalling record of vice, crime. pauperlsm
and every form of suffering and misery re
sulting from the unrestricted traffic and eX-
cessive indulgence in intoxicating liquors
Won might say would surely justify the most
stringent legislation and the most vigorous
enforcement of such legislation for the sup
nressiou of such traffic. We are TO assume
that the Legislature of Maine has acted IN
good faith in this matter; that IN enscting
this legislation aud the provisions W ith special
reference t, the enforcement OF II, 1t has
sought only the welfare, the well-belng OF the
people of the State of Maine, and has not
sought in any manner TO interfere with the
regulations of commerce with foreign nations
or with the prerogative of Congress.
Now the question arises, if there Is any